Aldi GmbH & Co. KG, Aldi Stores Limited v VPX Ltd, VPX Solutions

WIPO Case No. D2025-1828

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Aldi GmbH & Co. KG, Aldi Stores Limited v. VPX LTD, VPX Solutions

Case No. D2025-1828

1. The Parties

The Complainants are Aldi GmbH & Co. KG, Germany (the “First Complainant”); and Aldi Stores Limited,

United Kingdom (“UK”) (the “Second Complainant”), represented by Freeths LLP, UK.

The Respondent is VPX LTD, VPX Solutions, Romania.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <aldirewards7.info> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 7, 2025. On
May 8, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection
with the disputed domain name. On May 9 and May 22, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the
Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name
which differed from the named Respondent (Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The
Center sent an email communication to the Complainants on May 14, 2025, providing the registrant and
contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainants to submit an amendment to the

Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on May 22, 2025.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal
requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 23, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 12, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 16, 2025.

The Center appointed Karen Fong as the sole panelist in this matter on June 26, 2025. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of

page 2

Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The First Complainant owns and the Second Complainant is the exclusive licensee in the UK of various trade
mark registrations for the mark ALDI. The Second Complainant operates “ The First and

Second Complainants will individually and collectively be referred to as “the Complainant”.

The Complainant and its related companies own and operate a chain of supermarkets under the name ALDI.
Established in the UK in 1988, the Aldi group has now more than 5,000 stores around the world including
Australia, France, Germany, Spain, Switzerland and the United States of America. According to the YouGov

BrandIndex report, ALDI was the most popular brand in the supermarket sector in the UK in Q1 2025.

The Complainant’s trade mark registrations for ALDI include the following:

- European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 002071728 for ALDI registered on April 14, 2005;

- UK Trade Mark Registration No. UK00002250300 for ALDI registered on March 30, 2001; and

- UK Trade Mark Registration No. UK00906870943 for ALDI registered on October 19, 2009.

(individually and collectively referred to as the “Trade Mark”).

The Respondent appears to be based in Romania, according to the registrant information provided by the resolves to a pay-per-click (“PPC”) webpage with commercial links to third party websites (the “Website”).

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trade mark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

page 3

The Panel finds the entirety of the Trade Mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly,
the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

While the addition of other terms here, “rewards” and “7” after the Trade Mark in the disputed domain name may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

Moreover, the nature of the disputed domain name is inherently misleading as it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. The inclusion of the terms “rewards 7” immediately following the Trade Mark in the disputed domain name could give the false impression of an official customer incentive or loyalty programme No. 7 operated or authorised by the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular but without limitation, that if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent must have been aware of the Trade Mark when it registered the disputed domain name given the reputation of the Trade Mark which was registered decades prior to registration of the disputed domain name. It is therefore implausible that the Respondent was

unaware of the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name.

In the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2 states as follows:

“Noting the near instantaneous and global reach of the Internet and search engines, and particularly in
circumstances where the complainant’s mark is widely known (including in its sector) or highly specific and a
respondent cannot credibly claim to have been unaware of the mark (particularly in the case of domainers),

page 4

panels have been prepared to infer that the respondent knew, or have found that the respondent should
have known, that its registration would be identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark. Further
factors including the nature of the domain name, the chosen top-level domain, any use of the domain name,
or any respondent pattern, may obviate a respondent’s claim not to have been aware of the complainant’s

mark.”

The fact that there is a clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with the Respondent’s choice
of the disputed domain name without any explanation is also a significant factor to consider (as stated in
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1). The disputed domain name falls into the category stated above and the

Panel finds that registration is in bad faith.

The disputed domain name is also being used in bad faith.

The Website is a PPC site which has been set up for the commercial benefit of the Respondent. It is highly likely that Internet users when typing the disputed domain name into their browser, or finding it through a search engine would have been looking for a site operated by the Complainant rather than the Respondent. The disputed domain name is likely to confuse Internet users trying to find the Complainant’s website. Such confusion will inevitably result due to the fact that the disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s distinctive Trade Mark and is also confusingly similar to the Complainant’s own domain name.

The Respondent employs the reputation of the Trade Mark to mislead users into visiting the disputed domain name instead of the Complainant’s. From the above, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, by misleading Internet users into believing that the Respondent’s Website is that of or authorised or endorsed by the Complainant.

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <aldirewards7.info> be transferred to the Second Complainant, Aldi Stores Limited.

/Karen Fong/ Karen Fong Sole Panelist Date: July 7, 2025